get_recent

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses sorting behavior (by submission date, newest first) and gives example categories. However, it does not mention any limits, pagination, authentication, or rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, concise and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: first states purpose, second gives usage guidance. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple retrieval tool with 2 params, the description is mostly complete. It covers the main purpose, sorting, and category examples. Minor gap: does not explain the 'max_results' parameter, but the default is visible in schema. Output schema exists, so return details are not needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%. Description provides examples for 'category' (e.g., cs.AI, quant-ph) which adds context. However, 'max_results' parameter is not explained, only a default is shown in schema. Partial improvement via category examples.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves the most recent papers in a given arXiv category, sorted by submission date. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recent papers'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on recency and sorting.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use ('when the user wants to see the latest submissions', 'Ideal for 'what is new''). Does not explicitly exclude other use cases or mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tools implies its niche.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.